Slashdot Mirror


First Cases of Flesh-Eating Drug Emerge In the United States

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Having spent the last decade wreaking havoc in Russia, a flesh-eating drug called Krokodil has arrived in Arizona, reports Eliza Gray at Time Magazine. The Banner Poison Control Center has reported the first two users of the drug which makes user's skin scaly and green before it rots away [Warning: Graphic Images]. Made of codeine, a painkiller often used in cough syrup, and a mix of other materials including gasoline, paint thinner, and alcohol, Krokodil become popular in Russia because it costs 20 times less than heroin and can be made easily at home. Also known as Desomorphine, Krokodil has sedative and analgesic effects, and is around 8-10 times more potent than morphine. When the drug is injected, it rots the skin by rupturing blood vessels, causing the tissue to die. As a result, the skin hardens and rots, sometimes even falling off to expose the bone. 'These people are the ultimate in self-destructive drug addiction,' says Dr. Ellen Marmur. 'Once you are an addict at this level, any rational thinking doesn't apply.' The average life span of a Krokodil user is two to three years, according to a 2011 TIME investigation of the drug's prevalence in Russia."

114 of 618 comments (clear)

  1. Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems to be a somewhat self-limiting problem. Users will die off fairly rapidly.

    1. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But it's not. Drug users want something cheap and accessible. The market will always be there, even if only a few partake. If heroine were legal, nobody would die. But so long as we think they deserve it, it's ok to enforce policies that kill millions.

    2. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If heroine were legal, nobody would die.

      Like nobody dies from alchohol abuse?

      Maybe fewer people would die. But it's obviously not "nobody."

    3. Re:Gross, but... by BKX · · Score: 5, Informative

      Heroin overdose among experienced users with steady supplies are unheard of. Heroin is quite safe, actually. The overdose problem is usually among black-tar heroin users who inject or snort (rather than smoke or eat) who then buy white powder heroin. Black-tar heroin is very impure (20-30%), being manufactured directly from unpurified opium or poppy straw extract, while white powder heroin is very pure(80%+, unless heavily cut), being manufactured from purified morphine. Even when cut, white powder heroin tends to be at least twice a potent as black-tar. Furthermore, black-tar and white powder are misnomers; both are yellow to yellowish brown, which is how those overdoses happen.

      Until recently, white powder heroin was only available in large cities such as NYC, but now it's moving West, leading to a string of overdose deaths along the east coast and as far west as Michigan.

      If it were regulated and legal, this entire class of overdose deaths would be eliminated. Considering that this type of overdose death is the majority of overdose deaths in the US, we are killing people by keeping it illegal. Considering the rate of overdose deaths among long-time users, legalization would result in fewer overall deaths, even if everyone picked up the habit. Now that you know all this, you and all other prohibitionists, especially those in Congress, are engaged in willful murder.

      Have fun sleeping tonight, murderer.

    4. Re:Gross, but... by hydrofix · · Score: 5, Informative

      Like nobody dies from alchohol abuse?

      Actually, you mostly die of heroin through accidental or deliberate overdose, or through associated problems like contracting HIV through a dirty IV injection needle, that are not actually related to heroin per se. Because what comes to physiological effects, opioids, such as heroin, are actually less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, even in prolonged use. There is an increased chance of infections due to the suppressing effect opioids have on the body's immune system, but that's about it.

      Of course, this if you ignore the horrible consequence of extreme dependence and very difficult withdrawal from heroin (the withdrawal can actually be itself fatal), which means it's very hard to stop taking it once you get hooked on heroin. But you will not die of it, if you keep to your body's tolerance levels. Alcohol dependence could be considered much worse, because daily heavy drinking is so extremely detrimental for your health, and if you are unable to stop drinking, it will inevitably lead to a fatal failure of some vital organ, such as the liver.

      Smoking, too, is very bad for your health, and safely injecting high-purity heroin a few times per day is probably less harmful in the long run than smoking a pack of cancer sticks per day. It has to be noted though, that if you decide to become a heroin addict, your life will be absolutely dominated by the graving for this substance, probably for the rest of your life. This can have devastating effects on thing many people find very important in life, such as career and family relations. Smoking addiction, on the other hand, while physically probably more unhealthy, still lets you lead a relatively normal life.

    5. Re:Gross, but... by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Heroin withdrawal is not fatal. Alcohol, benzodiazepines, and barbiturates are the three drug classes with life threatening withdrawal syndromes. Heroin withdrawal is still extraordinarily unpleasant, but it's not deadly.

    6. Re:Gross, but... by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have fun sleeping tonight, murderer.

      I was with you right up until that sentence and your reasoning leading up to it. TBH, claiming that making a drug illegal is equivalent to murder is, in short, bullshit. There are numerous valid ideological reasons why drugs should not be banned by governmental edict, but that argument is not one of them.

      This is why: In all honestly, it is not murder when someone willfully engages in the practice, knowing full well there are potentially fatal hazards involved (given the plethora of education on the subject, it's not like you can credibly claim a general ignorance here.) Long story short, while addiction is a tragedy, the participants are not exactly unwilling victims, either. Statistically, they all voluntarily jammed that needle into their arms (or smoked it, ate it, snorted it, whatever).

      It's like claiming that making base jumping off of a building illegal is tantamount to murder, when the base jumpers are the ones willfully doing it themselves.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    7. Re:Gross, but... by flimflammer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Jeeze, did you even read the article you linked when pointing out heroin as the big bad or did you just look for the first article that had a bar graph with heroin seemingly on the top? It basically contradicts your entire attitude about heroin, and reaffirms the thought process of the person you're quoting, even if it was an exaggeration.

      Here, let me quote something from your own link:

      Firstly, the harms of a given drug will depend upon its legal status. The best way to demonstrate this point is with heroin, which is placed at the top of the Lancet-scale as the most harmful of all drugs. For street heroin this may well be the appropriate placing, but, if we are being scientific here, it is imperative to separate out the harms that follow from use of the drug per se, and the health and social harms exacerbated or created specifically by the drug's use within an illegal market. These, lets call them 'prohibition harms', include:

      * Contaminated/cut product (poisoning, infection risks)
      * Dirty/shared needles (Hep C / HIV risk)
      * Vast quantities of low level acquisitive property crime to support a habit: illegal markets inflate the cost of an essentially worthless agricultural product to one that is worth more than its weight in gold. People on prescriptions don't have to nick stuff.
      * Street prostitution (see above)
      * Street dealing, drug-gang violence and turf wars
      * Drug litter (needles in the gutter etc)

      More useful would have been to rank both illegal street heroin, associated with the above harms which aren't going to help its ranking much, and prescribed pharmaceutical heroin, associated with none of the above harms. The latter would certainly be considerably further down the scale. Luckily, we can theoretically do this with heroin as both legal and illegal markets exist simultaneously in the UK, although the number of prescribed users (approx 400) is rather eclipsed by the number of illicit users (approx 250,000+). It’s a great shame the authors of this study failed to make that comparison (we do, confusingly, get 'street methadone' in the ranking, but not the prescription variety).

      The harms from heroin don't generally come from heroin itself, but from the unsafe creation and use pervasive of today's users as a result of being illegal.

    8. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can't think of a single film where the heroine was illegal.

      I'm pretty sure Natalie Portman was illegal in Leon.

    9. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      From your link:
      " I believe the collective harm the illegal drugs on this list cause to both the users and society in general is vastly compounded as a result of their illegality. "

      The list is "tainted" for use in a post-legalization society, as many (most?) of the harms are because of its illegality.

    10. Re:Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Alcohol is by far the worst drug. It doesn't matter in the least how many people it kills directly. It kills far more people than all the other drugs combined. Still, it remains legal in the US while we still often imprison the marijuana smoker just for having the plant. I wonder what the real difference between these drugs could be? If ever there was a classic example of "follow the money", the comparison and contrast here is it.

      I am by no means suggesting that we should make alcohol illegal. The point is, anyone who argues that keeping the other drugs illegal makes sense is either brainwashed, a complete moron, someone lying directly on the money trail, or some combination of some or all of those things.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    11. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because Heroin is a stimulant. Also, quite a few Heroin addicts I've encountered had a decent upbringing. They end up making poor choices in their teenage years, when their decision making is still immature. Having an addiction by the time they reach their 20's, they end up being marginalized by society and criminalized by the government, which is very likely clandestinely involved in the distribution of opiates.

    12. Re:Gross, but... by just_a_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      There has never been a direct death from Marijuana.

      False. I remember reading about how someone got a bale of the stuff accidentally dropped on him, and got crushed.

      --
      How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
    13. Re:Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ". Increasing the supply and decreasing the price of this is not the best way to stop that from happening."

      Ironically from your perspective at least, that is exactly the way to diminish the occurrence of said events. People die from overdose almost exclusively due to the fact that the doses are unpredictable. Legalizing it would also mean it was available in standardized potency. That is the difference that you have missed. You also haven't considered that prostitution and deaths involving gangs and other black market activity are also a major factor that play into the death toll, and those too would no longer be an issue. Finally, by legalizing it we can tax it and use the tax income to offer assistance for those who want to enter into rehab and stop using it, further diminishing the death toll.

      In other words, you couldn't possible be much less informed, or have gotten it more wrong.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    14. Re:Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I sure will. I'm fine killing off the lowlifes who's opinion of existence is so low that they feel the need to partake of illegal artificial stimulants in order to make it tolerable."

      They are usually taking it to deal with having to live on the same planet with people like you, actually.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    15. Re:Gross, but... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      It most certainly is moving west...I'm in the middle of the US and we've started seeing an upswing of deaths from it. People dying with the needle still in their arms, who are used to the "good stuff" and don't realize what their actually injecting. Around here, much of this blame can be laid at the feet of the cartels...they are the primary producer and distributor of it.

      As long as we continue to base our national policies on superstition and ancient mythological morality, stupid laws like this will exist and flourish. Luckily since I'm in IT I am shielded from most of the zealous young-earth conspiracy theorists, but every once in awhile one will show up. Now it's far more likely for people to think I'm an atheist as opposed to a "devil worshiper", so I guess that's an improvement. Sometimes I try to educate them that it's not that I don't "believe" in some higher power but 1. there isn't enough proof to show that "religious experiences" are much more than some evolutionary response to threat stress (aka Third Man syndrome) and 2. If these Gods are real, why would anyone want anything to do with some entity that really seems capricious, genocidal, bi-polar, and malicious?

      Maybe someday the US will make laws based on science and reality, as opposed to "morality" and "divine punishment". When we have legislation based on real-world results as opposed to "a human-like entity in the sky who spoke to me in a dream", then maybe we will be mature enough to fix our problems.

    16. Re:Gross, but... by ruir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fairly easy, the difference between alcohol and marijuana is that anybody can grow the plant without having middle man or paying taxes, and that cant be allowed.

    17. Re:Gross, but... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2

      Guy back in school had a jug of apple juice, yeast, sugar, and a heating register. They don't call it home brew for nothing.
      So I don't find your distinction compelling.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    18. Re:Gross, but... by gd2shoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remember, logical reason doesn't drive political discourse. We are so jaded to politics that you need to elicit strong emotion to have any hope of affecting the average voter. Thus, we devolve into mindless rhetoric in a vain attempt to manipulate people into caring, instead of thinking.

      (Caring makes political accomplishment worthwhile; thinking makes it possible. We're currently way overbalanced in the "caring" direction... and graft, but that's a different topic.)

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    19. Re:Gross, but... by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Insightful" is just some guy with mod points who happens to agree.

    20. Re:Gross, but... by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm an anesthesiologist who majored in chemistry in undergrad. Back when I thought I wanted two doctorates, I did a couple of years of work with the opioid systems of the brain. (I didn't finish the PhD, but I did put a fair number of rats through opioid withdrawal.)

    21. Re:Gross, but... by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      Sorry, accidental early post. I've seen them in clinical practice, of course, and since I'm an anesthesiologist I have to account for these things professionally. I've also long had an interest in pharmacology as a science.

    22. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Yes, I look at statistics and reality, rather than demonizing things based on emotion. That makes me a "moron" in purityrannical societies like the USA.

    23. Re:Gross, but... by quarterbuck · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hah! Best smack-down on /. ever (tied with when NYCountryLawyer used to reply to stories about himself).

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    24. Re:Gross, but... by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Heroin overdose among experienced users with steady supplies are unheard of. Heroin is quite safe, actually.

      The letal dose of heroin is 5x an "effective dose". I suppose some people who know what they're doing can avoid an overdose, but the gap between an effective dose and a lethal dose is a lot closer for heroin than for - well - every other illegal drug on this list: http://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/200645104835_307.pdf

      That sounds indeed highly dangerous. But here is the kicker: The lethal dose for Paracetamol is only about 3x of that "effective dose". One of the reasons you can accidentally kill yourself with it if you do not follow the instructions carefully. Yet most people never have a problem.

      (No, I am not for legalizing the stuff. I am just pointing out your argument does not hold water.)

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    25. Re:Gross, but... by f3rret · · Score: 2

      Not everyone who gets addicted to opiates start out with the needle or choosing they want to take the drug for fun. There are people who get prescribed opiate based painkillers, get hooked while in treatment, then continue using after the prescription runs out. They then have to source their opiates from a street dealer who might at one point offer heroin as an alternative to oxy-whatever.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    26. Re:Gross, but... by gweihir · · Score: 2

      I really do not understand that needle problem. All over Europe, you can get needles without problems in any pharmacy and very cheaply, or you can just mail-order a box full. I use them for some lab and technical purposes and a box of 100 runs you something like 5-10USD, with syringes about twice that. Yet people still share needles and syringes even here. Are you saying it is illegal to sell/buy syringes and needles in the US?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    27. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Poor, crazy Amy Winehouse being the perfect example of what you mean there. Her death is what clued me into the fact that alcohol withdrawal can be life threatening. Say what you will about her antics, but I would still take her music over what has come out of the pop scene this year. No question.

      But newly hearing about Krokodil today has my cynic badge revoked. I haven't been shocked by something in the news for a very long time. Appalled, yeah, of course. Truly shocked? Krokodil accomplished that today.

      Using Meth or Crack as a shorthand for drug addled will soon be overtaken by the word "Krok".

      I'm a military guy, but after seeing the pictures of this and that Vice documentary listed below, just...

      Oh my God

    28. Re:Gross, but... by ahodgson · · Score: 2

      That's 5-10 dollars you could spend on ... more heroin. Or, periodically, food.

      Drug addicts, pretty much by definition, don't make good decisions.

    29. Re:Gross, but... by lgw · · Score: 2

      Yeah - libertarian though I am, sometimes government intervention in someone's life really is the lesser evil. Sheesh.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    30. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Before anyone goes on about who's seen worse shit as a member of the military, it is always going to be the case where someone has seen something more fucked up. Always going to be the case and always was, so it's a pointless debate to get into.

      My point there is that seeing the effects on that woman who's poisoned 65% of the meat from her bones, crying naked and living dead on the table? I would choose to unsee that. I would go to the clinic in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and pay to unsee that.

      Not something I say lightly. Don't even mind much for any opinions on that decision. I want to unsee the guy's dead white flesh plopping into a bucket after a nurse cuts open the plastic wrap the addict's used to have some semblance he still had a leg. (Spoiler Alert: He didn't)

    31. Re:Gross, but... by nbauman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have fun sleeping tonight, murderer.

      it is not murder when someone willfully engages in the practice, knowing full well there are potentially fatal hazards involved (given the plethora of education on the subject, it's not like you can credibly claim a general ignorance here.) Long story short, while addiction is a tragedy, the participants are not exactly unwilling victims, either.

      So if you go to a street corner where drug dealers hang out, somebody shoots you and takes your money, that wasn't murder because you knew full well there were potentially fatal hazards involved.

      So if you go to a bar looking for sex, a girl invites you home, kills you, and takes your wallet, she's not engaging in murder because you knew full well there were potentially fatal hazards involved.

    32. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The libertarian in me says that nothing of this would happen if heroin was easier to get by those that need it. I highly doubt people really want to take that crap over heroin...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    33. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A German court actually once finally settled the question why alcohol is legal and other drugs ain't. Their explanatory statement: Alcohol is not primarily consumed for its intoxicating qualities.

      Well, I pondered this at length in the presence of a few beer and the next day it hit me like lightning: No, I don't get drunk for the buzz, it's for that great head I have the next day...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    34. Re:Gross, but... by bitt3n · · Score: 4, Funny

      I did put a fair number of rats through opioid withdrawal

      were any of them able to stay clean?

    35. Re:Gross, but... by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now joy on the other hand...

      Selling joy's only legal in Nevada.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    36. Re:Gross, but... by kermidge · · Score: 2

      The rational human in me agrees. I've long argued for the legalization of most recreational drugs. Caveat is combined with good education and better recovery/rehab/training/counseling. Main rule would be "do not operate under the influence" be it vehicle or in the workplace of power machinery.

      Intervention gets interesting. Do we intervene when someone seems bent on self-destruction to the point of death or decides while "drug addled" to commit suicide? So we sober them up. What if they still decide to die? I think we have to allow that choice. Making suicide a crime bespeaks a jealous god.

    37. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Various reasons. First and foremost, of course, financial ones. Manufacturers of legal drugs are of course not interested in sharing their market. And here you have three very powerful lobbies against you: Alcohol, Tobacco and (no, not Firearms) Pharma. The first two obviously have no interest in you having access to cheap and easy replacements for their drugs, especially ones you can produce far more easily than you could produce your own tobacco or alcohol. Pharma's spiel here is even more insidious.

      Their big problem is that, especially during the 50s and 60s, a lot of very potent and very useful psychotropics have been discovered. Actually, the "best" drugs have been designed and manufactured then. The stuff that could literally save lots of people today from their psychological problems, from anxiety to depression. And while we might think that it's awesome that these drugs are "perfect", they have a fatal flaw from the point of view of a pharma corp: Their patent expired.

      Now, how can you compete with a "perfect" drug? How could you market something that is inferior but patentable against something that is better but could be made by anyone. Hell, could be made with trivially available equipment to the average amateur chemist? Answer: You cannot. Without the aid of the law, that is.

      There are quite a few very potent and very useful SSRAs, SNRAs and other releasing agents out there that are, from a health point of view, at least as safe as many of the contemporary SSRIs and SNRIs while also having the advantage of actually doing something for the patient... but they're invariable Schedule I/Class A.

      You can actually check for yourself, simply follow the timing of drug law changes and patent expiration. It's quite ... interesting.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    38. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I guess "nobody" is a bit too much of an absolute, just like with any drug out there, there is a potential for abuse and a potential to cause self harm and even harm to others, but if you consider the various crime and health issues associated with the illegality of drugs, I dare say with some faith that fewer people would die as a result of drugs. Just subtract crime (murder, manslaughter, bodily harm) associated with acquisition, turf wars amongst warring dealer groups and health issues associated with inferior sanitary situation and quality of product and I'm pretty sure you'll end up with a lot fewer people hurt or dead.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    39. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Needles are illegal?

      What kind of fucked up country makes sterile needles illegal?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    40. Re:Gross, but... by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Funny

      They didn't have a choice either way.

    41. Re:Gross, but... by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Alcohol, benzos, and barbiturates all potentiate the GABAergic systems of the brain - the inhibitory pathways. Over time, the brain becomes accustomed to their presence and more or less compensates - this is why chronic alcoholics can tolerate blood alcohol levels that would be immediately fatal to most people, and how some people can actually function while taking Xanax (as opposed to having ten-hour chunks of their life simply forgotten).

      However, if you abruptly discontinue these drugs when they are being regularly consumed at high doses, the resulting hyperactivity of the brain and nervous system can prove fatal - if you'd like a nice, detailed view, look up delirium tremens.

    42. Re:Gross, but... by dryeo · · Score: 2

      In Vancouver there is a safe injection site, just celebrated their 10th anniversary. Supplies clean needles, a safe spot to shoot up with nurses available. While there has been quite a few overdoses (484 out of 276178 visits) there hasn't been any deaths due to the availability of medical attention and it has also cut way down on communicable disease due to clean needles. The addicts love it as it removes most of the fatal risks involved in addiction.
      The Conservative federal government tried their hardest to close it and only failed because the Supreme court said it violated the rights of addicts to remove something that made their lives much safer (section 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.). The government then made regulations that would ensure another such clinic will never open.
      This attitude that addicts should die because they're doing bad stuff is equivalent to murder in the same way that not throwing that rope at your feet to the drowning person because you don't like them is murder. Perhaps manslaughter would be more legally accurate.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insite

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    43. Re:Gross, but... by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Gee, you think? It appears that American society has collectively learned nothing from the Prohibition days.

      Rather than trying to understand why people use drugs or doing something to help people, society at large just likes to judge and label them "losers". For a supposedly "Christian" nation this is pretty f'ing pathetic.

      I live in Chicago and have seen what happens to people when they can't get access to treatment or when they decide to take a trip to the 'hood for their fix. Most of the addicts I have known have wanted to quit, but the help's not there for them in many cases. One of my ex-girlfriends died from an overdose a few years ago. Thankfully some of the other people I knew were able to get clean after many years of trying.

      We should be pursuing harm reduction strategies, but again, these are just "losers", so it's good if they die. Right?

    44. Re:Gross, but... by dryeo · · Score: 2

      There was a famous study on rats which were given access to all the morphine (the researchers couldn't get heroin) they wanted. Two groups, one in a really nice cage with lots of toys and no overcrowding and one in a horrible overcrowded cage with nothing to do. The rats in the first cage hardly ever took the morphine and usually took it in a party attitude whereas in the overcrowded horrible cage the majority of rats quickly became addicted.
      The Russian city is probably a really horrible place to live.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    45. Re:Gross, but... by dryeo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or who funded the anti-hemp movement (lots of cotton farmers).

      Actually one particular media mogul by the name of Hearst who had heavily invested in pulp paper combined with parts of government who had gained much power during prohibition and wanted to keep it after prohibition was repealed.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    46. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      They are "illegal" because they could be used to safely administer an unauthorized chemical to a willing recipient. Welcome to the USA, The most free nation on the planet. Except for all the others.

    47. Re:Gross, but... by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, obviously you're American. In Germany we have alcoholic drinks that taste good

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
    48. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Gladly: More crime. Poorer grades in school. Higher unemployment, lower employability. General decline in public health and living standards.The emergence of neighborhoods where nobody would choose to live. Large numbers of cases of child neglect handled by the police and social workers.

      Oddly, the US saw the proliferation of these problems *after* the regulation of drugs began.

      Not good things. But these are the results of non-enforcement of drug laws. If you look for the evidence you will find it, and if you really want specific examples of places to look, then I can tell you about those

      Yes, confirmation bias. You wish to see them, so if there are 1000 applicable locations and 10 follow this pattern, you'll see that as a confirmation of this occurring, when it's only 1% of the time it happens. Yes, if you really want to find it, you'll find a way. But I'd rather find the truth, than "proof" that your pet opinions are correct.

  2. Someone call walter white by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    the drug apparently needs some work....

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  3. Re:Natural selection by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ahh, the soft empathic voice of Slashdot.....

    TLDR; this is an incredible dumbass drug. They take codeine, which apparently is easier to get than heroin Russia, run it through some Mad Men style kitchen chemistry, don't really bother filtering it, don't have a clue about what they made then... wait for it... inject it. Bypassing every single organismal defense mechanism save for the few remaining T-cells that the user's bone marrow has scrounged up.

    Violence will ensue....

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  4. Solution by blue+trane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Legalize heroin.

    1. Re:Solution by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a solution like legalizing stabbing is a solution to gun violence.

      By all means, legalize non-addictive drugs (e.g. marijuana, MDMA, LSD), but heroin is something else entirely. People shouldn't have their lives destroyed just because some skilled salesman convinced them to try it. It's not good for the user, and it's not good for society. It's only good for the dealer. The last thing this country needs is the marketing arm of Philip Morris or InBev pushing an even worse drug.

    2. Re:Solution by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So why do we screw up their lives after a skilled salesman convinces them to try it by throwing them in jail? Isn't that bad for all the reasons you mentioned?

      I don't think we want active sales and marketing for heroine, but jailing addicts and driving them to dangerously impure and inconsistent street drugs seems like a bad idea. Especially if it eventually drives them to krokodil.

      Perhaps the clean stuff should be legally sold at the pharmacy but with no advertising at all and the pharmacist must giv you a pamphlet on drug treatment and tell you heroine is a bad idea when he hands it over.

    3. Re:Solution by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Colorado is working on it for marijuana. They appear to be taking a careful, considered approach and I'm going to bet this is the framework for all sorts of 'bad for you but good for the economy' things to wander down the pike.

      This country is looking like something out of a Robert Heinlein novel. Where's The Prophet?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Solution by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nah, legalize everything.

      Let God sort it out.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Solution by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      doesn't have a good control framework like Cigarettes/alcohol which are legal and profitable for the government, especially here (Canada) with the "SIN TAXES".

      In the places where it has been decriminalized, the problems associated with the use of drugs like heroin were not just significantly but drastically reduced.

      That doesn't prove cause and effect but it has been consistent enough to suggest that inductive logic is appropriate here.

    6. Re:Solution by Garridan · · Score: 2

      Implementation of a good control framework is implicit to almost all pleas to legalize drugs. Don't just stop cracking down on drug labs. Tax the drugs, crack down on unlicensed labs, and audit the licensed ones frequently to make sure they're making pure stuff and selling it unadulterated. Regulate the entire supply stream, like Washington and Colorado are doing with pot, and organized crime dries up. Unless the tax is unreasonably high (as I expect to be the case in WA).

    7. Re:Solution by gregor-e · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Addiction is a health issue, not a criminal issue. Making drugs illegal has never worked. Ever. We should handle drug use in much the same way we handle other risky activities - by testing and licensing. Just as one must pass written and practical exams before driving, flying or hunting, we should issue substance licenses only after the prospective user has demonstrated comprehensive understanding of the properties and risks of whatever substance they're interested in, including alcohol and nicotine. If they mess up and cause harm to themselves or others, they are punished and their license may be revoked. We should also offer free drug treatment for anyone who wants it.

    8. Re:Solution by gregor-e · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is estimated that only about 23% of people who use heroin become dependent on it.

  5. So what makes this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    So where do the side effects (of rotting skin, etc.) come from? The active ingredient itself?

    If not, this is in fact a strong argument against blanket-banning of drugs (a long-term favorite of US and US-backed international policy makers), since criminalising encourages home making, impure drugs, uncontrollable use, and so on, and so forth.

    The alternative is to decriminalise use, then regulate, and make sure people who lose themselves in drugs get the help they need to get back on their feet. Like Portugal did, and does. But the US won't like that because then it can't go on waging war on drugs. And that would cut into the DEA's playtime. Can't have that, now can we?

    1. Re:So what makes this bad? by harperska · · Score: 3, Informative

      The linked io9 article suggests that the rotting skin effects are due to the horribly impure byproducts. Krokodil gets you addicted from the potency of the Desomorphine. Krokodil rots off your flesh because of the gasoline and paint thinner used in its production and then not purified out before injection. Apparently gasoline circulating in your veins causes blood vessels to burst leading to necrosis.

  6. Another failure of the drug war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we treated addiction like the disease it is instead of moralizing it as a crime, we could help these people become productive members of society again instead of driving them to slow suicide. If safe drugs were available in free clinics and addicts received treatment, nobody would choose krokodil, nobody would be robbed for drug money, gangs would have one less source of funding, and these victims would be able to overcome their disease.

  7. Re:Natural selection by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Funny
    If you read the article, some of the images are rather horrific. That said, the best parts are some of the comments, like this one:

    Oh, sure, but if someone tries to climb Mt. Everest and ends up losing their fingers, toes and half their face to frostbite, it was an exhilarating human adventure, eh?

    Mt. Everest kills a higher percentage of its users than methamphetamine.

    Though, okay, I suppose injecting gasoline into your veins is a pretty bad idea.

    That guy should join a debate club because he would win after his opponents all fell over laughing.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  8. Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The countries where this is actually problem, codeine is available OTC. This isn't the case here in the US. It's probably easier for people here to get their hands on heroin.

  9. Re:Natural selection by NettiWelho · · Score: 2

    I think the availability of this substance should be encouraged. If anyone is supremely dumb enough to inject this into themselves, our overall gene pool can only benefit as a result.

    There is a world of difference between not caring if you're alive 3 years down the road because you perceive your life not worth living and doing it just 'for fun'.

    Besides, it is not a 'flesh eating drug'. The problems are caused by the impurities because these amateur chemists have no idea what theyre doing.

    Furthermore, none of those people would be making it themselves if more safer alternatives were available.

  10. Seriously? by Alsee · · Score: 2

    Someone please tell me this is an Onion story.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  11. desomorphine does not rot flesh by p00kiethebear · · Score: 5, Informative

    Something needs to be made clear. Desomorphine itself does not rot flesh. With a little extra work the solution can be purified and there are users that DO take the time to do this. It's when the solution is simply thrown together and 'cooked down' that health problems occur. Street level users making it on their own don't take the time to purify it.

    --
    The Blade Itself
    1. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      We need another warning label on gasoline.

      "Do not inject directly into veins."

      That should solve the problem.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Informative

      The lady tried to settle with them for her current and expected future medical costs before even retaining a lawyer (i.e. $20K, of which $10K had already been accrued). They offered her $800 in return, despite the fact that she had been hospitalized for 8 days, undergone a series of skin grafts to replace the skin that had suffered third-degree burns, and faced another two years of treatment following the hospitalization.

      Does your coffee typically give you third-degree burns?

    3. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by quarterbuck · · Score: 2

      Does your coffee typically give you third-degree burns?
      No, but I do not pour it down my crotch either. Coffee is meant to be made with boiled water, which if poured down the pants, burns. Coffee made with unboiled water does taste different (bad, in my opinion).
      I am waiting for someone to burn their beard with a cigarette lighter and then sue Zippo for not putting a label saying "Contents inflammable, do not light anything with it".

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
  12. Re:This is the result of the counterrevolution by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pure c1ommunism has no more answers that pure capitalism.

    The ideal is somewhere between. Where capitalism reigns for all luxury goods and services, but the basic necessities are made available by the state, either directly as the case for utilities and healthcare should be, or indirectly with a non means tested basic income system that provides enough income to every household for a meager subsistence.

  13. media inaccuracy by drwho · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is not the drug (desomorphine) that kills, it is the impurities, mostly silica put into the codeine pills to poison people who try to make illicit drugs out of them. It is the government that is killing people by requiring these adulterants.

    1. Re:media inaccuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do I keep seeing people referring to Mad Men? Are you sure you don't mean Breaking Bad? Then again I don't have a TV or a Netflix account so what the fuck do I know....

    2. Re:media inaccuracy by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      Having been exposed to a couple of episodes, I suspect #4 is just good advice in general.

  14. Re:Natural selection by ericloewe · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure the supremely stupid will ever be productive members of society. Stupid people don't just develop out of great kids, now do they?

  15. Hooray for prohibition... by bluescrn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Make it hard to get hold of pure, *relatively* safe drugs... and people end up doing shit like this...

  16. Re:The only surprising part by nomadic · · Score: 2

    As a Florida resident that comment offends me. Or, it would offend me if it wasn't completely a valid and well-earned insult.

  17. A Disease of the Mind by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone who uses something so destructive to his own body has a sick and twisted soul. But the good response to a twisted soul is not to say they deserve what is done to their body, anymore than the good response to a sick body is to say that it deserves to be separated from its soul. The good response is to seek the healing of both.

    I do not believe in the drug war, but neither do I agree with those who would scoff, shrug, and say that it doesn't matter. Some of the comments in this vein are lacking in compassion and in humanity. I cannot see a great distinction in kind, though perhaps their is some difference in degree, between the mind of the inhumane person who would be rid of those who would harm themselves and the mind of the diseased man who would take drugs to rid him of himself. Both are antithetical to life.

    I do not believe in the drug war because the fighting metaphor is taken too literally. A drug war ought to be fought as we fight diseases, with treatment and medicine meant to heal, rather than as we fight foreign enemies, with guns and internment.

    I do not believe in the drug war because there are people willing to take a drug like this, a drug whose very name indicates its self-destructive potential, and therefore I cannot believe that the nightmare of the prison system or the fear thereof would end such self-abuse. Whether people do such drugs out of desperation or vice, punishment can have little positive effect on those whose recreation looks nightmarish to a person of ordinary psychology. They need help and help directed at the root of the problem. And since this becomes a political question, I would add that I would sooner taxes be spent helping people awaken from old nightmares than wake up to new ones. I do not believe in the drug war, but I do believe that we should do what we can to heal diseases of the mind which accept the destruction of the body.

  18. Re:Natural selection by GNious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're missing something ...

    Krokodil is NOT for those wanting to get high/stoned/whatever for cheaps.

    It is a drug for when everything else is just not cutting it anymore.
    It is a drug for when nothing in life really matter, besides the next fix.
    It is a drug for when you've accepted that you're going to die from drugs.

    Krokodil is the thing users turn to when everything else has been tried, when all there is left is the pain and the high and when you're beyond the regular kind of drug-addict-gone-fucked-up.

    "Dumb" has nothing, what-so-ever, to do with it.

  19. Re:Natural selection by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I saw an independent Australian documentary on Krokodil in one of the southern Russian cities, like Novobirisk. The addicts (in theit teens or twenties) figured they had about a week to live, and cared about nothing, living in a garbage pile in an abandoned building. The film crew tried to observe a drug buy, but ended up being chased by someone who spotted them. It was a incredibly sad, terrifying film.

    For their part, Russian officials are claiming that the Taliban is shipping cheap drugs north across the steppes in an attempt to corrupt and destabilize their cities.

    I'm all for legalization of a lot of substances and ending the Violence Due To Illegalization, but this one is so over-the-top in terms of both addiction and toxicity that I don't know what a rational response could be.

    --
    John
  20. Re:Natural selection by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

    Sorry but any teens shooting codeine and gas into their veins? not gonna be worth anything to anybody but the prison industrial complex. i live on what is called "the meth highway" so I see this kind of shit all the time and even if they quit meth after only a few years? they still have lifelong mental and physical problems and usually end up on disability or homeless.

    So sorry anybody that is THIS hardcore when it comes to getting high? Not gonna be useful down the line.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  21. Re:Natural selection by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm all for legalization of a lot of substances and ending the Violence Due To Illegalization, but this one is so over-the-top in terms of both addiction and toxicity that I don't know what a rational response could be

    Even if drugs were legalized, this one would still be illegal, much like adding melamine to children's food is illegal. Legalizing drugs doesn't mean we have to legalize everything.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  22. Re:Natural selection by xaxa · · Score: 4, Informative

    I saw an independent Australian documentary on Krokodil in one of the southern Russian cities, like Novobirisk.

    Was it this: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/vice-news/siberia-krokodil-tears-full-length ? (Narrator is British, btw).

  23. Re:Natural selection by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem with this drug isn't so much the drug as the incredibly low purity standards.

  24. Re:Natural selection by Garridan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obligatory: you don't know shit about the decision-making process of addicts. These aren't idiots fouling the gene pool. You're no smarter. Ignorant judgmental creeps like you should be culled from the gene pool -- we'd all be in a better if trivial levels of compassion were among "common sense".

    Treat addiction like the disease it is, and it goes away. Encouraging addicts to off themselves only puts money into the pockets of the crooked assholes who peddle these drugs, exacerbating the problem. This drains the resources of the host society, reduces the available talent pool for the arts and sciences, and guess who can't afford birth control: addicts.

    Self-righteous assholes like you are what got us to this place to begin with. May your ignorant worldview fuck off and die.

  25. Re:Reefer madness bullshit by pthisis · · Score: 2

    For some reason, it's not considered an epidemic when a doctor being paid by insurance companies prescribes methamphetamine manufactured by a pharmaceutical corporation under the brand name "Desoxyn"

    Yes it is.

    NIH: "The original amphetamine epidemic was generated by the pharmaceutical industry and medical profession as a byproduct of routine commercial drug development and competition" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377281/

    White House: "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has classified prescription drug abuse as an epidemic". http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/prescription-drug-abuse

    --
    rage, rage against the dying of the light
  26. As usual, problem seems to be the adulterants... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Desomorphine itself, while highly addictive, doesn't seem to be the cause of the horrific symptoms of "krocodil" use. Like many other street drugs, the worst of the negative effects are caused by the lack of regulation and dodgy manufacturing conditions.

    If pharmaceutical grade opiates were available to addicts, nobody would willingly inject this gasoline-laden crap into their body.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  27. What a crock of *bleep!* by sirwired · · Score: 2

    Why on earth would the Taliban give one flying *bleep!* about what happens in freakin' Siberia? This crap isn't even made from illegal drugs; it's made from Codeine, which is avail. OTC in Russia (and many other countries, for that matter.)

    In any case, if drugs were legal, this witch's brew simply would not exist. There would be no need for it to be specifically made illegal because nobody in their right mind would use this over actual Morphine, Heroin, Hydrocodone, whatever... or even if they did use it, it would be something out of an actual drug factory, not some horrible mix of petrochemicals, phosphorus, and iodine out of some junkie's basement.

  28. Re:Thank you, prohibition by Nadaka · · Score: 2

    Heroin was actually a very effective medical painkiller with a low level of lethality, after it was outlawed it was replaced by things like morphine that were far more dangerous.

  29. Re:Natural selection by IAmR007 · · Score: 2

    I find that when discussing social issues, in general, people tend to assume everyone is rational. Many social problems wouldn't exist if people were always rational. However, you have to expect such failures when dealing with a large number of people. Just as in engineering, the goal should be for things to fail gracefully rather than catastrophically. There will always be people who take horrible drugs, and there isn't enough emphasis on the "fail gracefully" part: programs that will help them recover.

  30. Insite - a Success Story by rueger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is likely a good time to talk up Insite, a "safe injection" site in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.

    The premise of Insite is simple: provide a clean, safe place for addicts to shoot up, under medical supervision. Insite doesn't provide drugs, but at least it offers some kind of controlled environment for injection.

    The upshot is ten years of servicing addicts, and not one death. It Just Works.

    Of course our law 'n' order neo-con Harper government is determined to shut it down, crying "Think of The Children" while pocketing donations from the big US private prison companies...

  31. Re:Natural selection by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Informative

    I actually read through that discussion, and believe it or not, he has a decent point, though it wasn't immediately evident. He eventually explained what the purpose of the exercise was, as well as his own stances on the issues. And contrary to his initial, inflammatory remarks, he seems like he's actually a rather rational and coherent individual who simply wanted to illustrate a problem in the most direct way possible.

    For instance, he never suggested that the drug should be legalized or that climbing Everest should be outlawed (quite the opposite, in fact), though people assumed that was what he intended. Rather, his point was that we, as a society, have lost much of our capacity for evaluating risk, since the rhetoric we choose to apply to certain topics is blowing the risks involved out of proportion and blinding us to how dangerous they actually are. To demonstrate that, he made some blanket statements about climbing Everest using the sort of rhetoric that is typically reserved for describing dangerous behavior that is frowned upon, such as drug abuse. To say the least, the reaction he got was predictable: outrage, dismissal, the construction of straw men, and ad hominem attacks, rather than rational rebuttals to the facts and logic he was providing.

    His point wasn't that climbing Everest should be outlawed because it is too dangerous, nor that the drugs should be legalized because there are other things we allow that are more dangerous. He was simply asking people to think critically about how the way that we present risks and have been trained to think about certain topics has colored our perceptions. I actually thought he had a rather good point, and that he did a great job of demonstrating the problem by placing himself in a position where the other commenters would construct straw men to tear down while vilifying him as a horrible person.

    In truth, I actually thought it was something a lot of people here on Slashdot would appreciate, rather than something they'd laugh at, since we're supposed to value facts and truth over rhetoric and soundbites, though, at least taken out of context, I can see why it'd be seen as ridiculous. I actually started reading the discussion just because I wanted to see how ridiculous the raving lunatic would get, but then I found out that he was anything but what I had initially thought of him.

  32. Darwin by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is hard at work.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  33. Re:Natural selection by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    OK, you need to get your thinking cap on and look at this thing a little more critically. Maybe you agree with the ultimate point he was trying to make, but he did not support it, and his failure to support it was absolutely hilarious and entertaining.

    First he is posting a comment that sounds supportive of using certain drugs where the average user (in Russia) dies within three years. That's not a good place to pick a fight. This drug is clearly bad news (not in the least because it is made out of gasoline).
    Then he is comparing death rates on Everest and meth users. It's a poorly formed statistic because it's not even clear how he measures the death rate of meth users. Furthermore, it doesn't take into consideration the other harmful effects of meth.
    To reiterate, if you measure death rate in one way, the meth death rate will be somewhat lower than the death rate on Everest. If you measure it another way, it will be much higher.
    Finally he contradicts himself, saying that injecting gasoline is a bad idea (what happened to the exhilarating adventure??)

    I applaud the fellow, it's not easy to fit that much wrongness into three sentences, he is truly an artist.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  34. If heroine were legal, nobody would die. by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    Sure they would. People die every day from alcohol and its legal.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  35. Re:Natural selection by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

    Biologically, that's a load of crap. Unless by "adult" you mean "completed physical development" in which case everyone younger than mid twenties is a child. Teenagers certainly are.

    "Teenager" covers reasonably well the biological period known as adolescence. People in that stage aren't anything like adults, biologically, including their brain development. In terms of experience they're even more child like.

  36. Re:Natural selection by haruchai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Based on what's happened to people I know, especially to one close friend who was very gifted, I can tell you that anyone can lose their way or be forced off the path.
    In my opinion, those who possess rare mental or creative gifts seem to be much more susceptible.

    Horrifying as the images of Krokodil images are, it's really a testament to the destructive power of addiction.

    It's easy to theorize that this is just winnowing out the useless but that ignores so much history where talented and wealthy individuals have destroyed their lives through addiction.

    Regardless of how superior you believe yourself to be, these people need help and compassion; not to be marginalized as convenient practitioners of auto-eugenics.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  37. don't look at the images MENTAL HEALTH WARNING by hebertrich · · Score: 2

    there's no words to say the shock i was just dealt. freaking destroy the links to the images .NOONE NEEDS TO SEE THIS .

    1. Re:don't look at the images MENTAL HEALTH WARNING by gweihir · · Score: 2

      There were enough clear warnings. If you cannot read, you are bound to run into nasty things now and then....

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  38. We must take responsibility for policy outcomes by elipsey · · Score: 2

    It is appalling to see so many people blaming users for the results of a policy Americans keep voting for. This is a public health outcome of the "War on Drugs", which, like any other war on a thing, is really just a war on people.

    Blaming addicts is a craven political tactic used by powerful incumbents to protect their incomes: Local and federal law enforcement agencies who's funding depends on drug prohibition, privatized prisons and their lobbies, grandstanding politicians who campaign on "getting tough" on things, and gangsters and smugglers all have a vested interest in the status quo. The outcome cannot improve until we refuse to be duped, demand reform.

    Desperate users who are already opioid addicts are exploited by sellers of krokodil, they are not normal healthy people who "choose to try it". It is unreasonable to assume that users of this substance have given informed consent to be poisoned; they do not enjoy the same autonomy that you and I do, they are desperate, and they are not easily able to evaluate the quality or authenticity of black market drugs.

    Drug prohibition is economically nonsensical. It is an explicitly stated aim of law enforcement to increase the street price of narcotics. Therefore, prohibition incentivizes the black market and makes users less safe and more desperate. Black market opioids are expensive and contaminated _because_ they are criminalized, and the desperation of addicts is exacerbated by our policy. We have deliberately created a situation where heroine costs $250 per gram and addicts must choose between getting DT's and robbing houses.

    Drug prohibition is predicated on the ideas that narcotics diminish our autonomy, and that we are all susceptible to addiction to some degree. It is incoherent to support prohibition and blame addicts at the same time. It's also hypocritical. How many of you have consumed a pharmaceutical opioid or other narcotic, and thereby chosen to risk addiction?

    We are not morally or intellectually superior to addicts. Moreover, blame is no solace to the millions of people who are imprisoned, killed by gangsters, or poisoned, and it is cruel, pedantic, and beneath us... oh wait, this is slashdot.... but seriously:

    Even if we don't care an iota for the welfare of drug users, we ought to resent the fact that we are footing the bill for a colossal boondogle which is perverting our legal system, and destabilizing neighboring states.

    Krokodil is a market outcome of drug prohibition. We should stop voting for it.

  39. Doesn't seem likely to catch on by russotto · · Score: 2

    Codeine (the main precursor to krokodil) is already prescription-only in the US, so the precursors aren't cheap and available. So there's no great advantage for opiate addicts; they seem more likely to stick with oxy, heroin, or other already-common opiates that kill you somewhat slower and without the flesh-eating side-effcts.

  40. In Soviet Russia... by Picass0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...drug consumes addict.

  41. Think of it... by Huge_UID · · Score: 2

    ...as evolution in action.

  42. Stop injecting drain cleaner then by gelfling · · Score: 2

    Or, in the long run it's a self correcting problem.

  43. Re:Natural selection by Richy_T · · Score: 2

    But suppose he becomes a brilliant scientist and invents a time machine, travels back to the early 20th century, grows a little mustache and kills six million Jews? My god, what kind of monster are you?

  44. Re:Natural selection by icebike · · Score: 2

    Because there are standards for injected Gasoline?

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  45. Re:Natural selection by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

    Sorry but any teens shooting codeine and gas into their veins? not gonna be worth anything to anybody but the prison industrial complex.

    As far as I can tell, this seems to be favoured by people who are *already* deep into heroin/opiate addiction and don't care about anything but a cheap hit.

    So even the brain-dead teenager probably wouldn't start out on this stuff- the depressing thing is that they'll quite possibly end on this drug.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  46. Re:Home-brew hard cider is good. by billstewart · · Score: 2

    Cider's not distilled, just fermented. After you've done that, distilling is optional (or freeze-concentration - you leave it out in the cold and keep skimming the non-alcoholic ice off the top until what's left has concentrated into applejack, though I haven't actually tried that.) Basically you just take some good juice, add an appropriate yeast, stick a fermentation lock on top and wait a week. Yum!

    I've only made one batch of beer, and it was from a kit that did basically all the work for you (it has a malt-hops syrup that you ferment.) Once I've used up a bit more of it, I'll try a small batch of with a somewhat more authentic method. (If I'd known there were kits for brewing a gallon at a time, I'd have started brewing years ago; homebrew used to be a 5-gallon-and-up activity, which is way more beer than I can consume before it's gone bad, and you need to do a few experimental batches before you've got anything you can dependably bring to a party, unless you're a college student with friends who'll drink anything they can get.)

    Why do it? Same reason it's worth baking your own bread on occasion, you get to experiment, make something tasty, and have fun.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  47. Crocodile? by WD · · Score: 2

    A drug that causes scaly green skin and is called crocodile? Ok, I have to admit that I had to look up that this isn't an early/late April fools joke.

  48. Depends by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    the problem with Krok isn't the drug, it's the impurities and how cheap & easy it is to make. In a completely free market ''entrepreneurs" could make Krok and sell it as heroin. Sure, they'd get found out. But Russia's a big place and they could just move every time the heat got too much.

    The Socialist in my says this wouldn't happen if people weren't trying so hard to escape from the brutal reality of our dog eat dog society.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  49. Education won't work by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    and you actually hit on the reason why when you mentioned rich vs poor people's drugs. A lot of these people have serious chemical imbalances in their brains. They aren't taking heroin because they lack moral fiber and they can't "Pray it away". They're self medicating. See this comic for anyone that doubts.

    As for action, why would Russian need to do anything? From a practical standpoint these people have little or no impact on the general populace. They die quickly and mostly keep to themselves. In order to take action Russia would have to move away from Libertarian ideals of "Free choice" and towards Socialism (hopefully real Socialism and not the phoney kind loved by Fascists).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  50. desomorphine isn't the issue by K10W · · Score: 3, Informative

    desomorphine isn't so bad if you purify it, or at least take a lot of the crap out like alkanes it's often cooked in. Krokodil is bad due to the lack of purifying step, I first heard of it a year ago but deso has been used in likes of Australia due to heroin shortages for much longer just not in such a dirty form hence lack of necrosis associated with it now.

    My degree was in biochem but even I know enough drug purification techniques to separate enough of the desomorphine from the crap and generally it wouldn't be so bad for you even IV, so i'm surprised no-one street level has figured out something similar. I mean even cynical view the customers live longer you sell more. The active ingredients are fine in right does, the impurities downright nasty and some of the adulterants/deliriants are not so great for the body such as the eye drops it's mixed with.

    Some adulterants are not so bad in opiates such as diphenhydramine (1st gen antihistamine to make it dreamy feeling) and benzos etc although much of the heroin and opiates knocking around on the street has too much shit like that in hence many users I know say the nod off it is shit but alright legs (duration of the hit). Obviously stuff like temazepam mixed in also cuts the craving somewhat and is noddy still so means you can drop the amount of actual gear in the mix. Some of the bulking agents are ok like lactose but some is downright shitty to cut with, there are always some too. Recent outbreak around city centre where i live of heroin with suboxone in (the buprenorphine is fine but the naloxone causes major issues when injected and has killed or hospitalised a few local addicts and a lot of outreach workers I know are warning about the batch).

  51. Re:Not true by lgw · · Score: 2

    If you live in Detroit, leave. It's not a city, it's an apocalyptic wasteland. Outside of actual disaster areas, no one who can show up on time and well groomed, and is a citizen, is "unemployable". My brother (40+) went through this recently when his career crashed. There are no shortage of unskilled jobs to work while you look for something semi-skilled to give you time to figure out what to do next. That is, if you don't turn your nose up at washing dishes.

    And, yes, the "right wing" has this bizarre notion that disability insurance fraud should be treated as such. Most of the "right wing" I know give to charity, though - you know, their own money, not someone else's.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.